Jump to content


Community Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Boudica

  1. WFG once tried raising money and it was a disaster. Does that make raising money a bad idea? Or could that be that the process was just poorly managed? If so, how about trying to find someone more competent at raising money for the game before dismissing the idea entirely? You wouldn't dismiss the idea of improving the pathfinder based on the fact that last time someone tried he wasn't very successful. I can see WFG inviting new artists and programmers to join the team all the time, so perhaps it's time to start looking for good fundraising managers too. I've seen the fundraising question being dismissed many times. I've never seen the specific reasons for it. No one disagrees with the statement that WFG needs good programmers. And I guarantee that you can get good programmers if you pay them well. We should really stop asking if WFG needs money and we should instead discuss how to get them. It could help if someone can describe the problems with the previous fundraising. That could put us on the right track with the discussion.
  2. That was a great presentation, well structured and covering all the important aspects in a short time. Proofs were shown that the game is easily moddable. I can't see how showing source code would make it any better. I don't agree with any of the negative criticism, to me it was just a great job.
  3. This sounds like a good idea. Anyway, it might work better to just keep an updated player activity chart. Imagine grouping players by rank ranges and making a chart showing the number of players in the given group that were online at the given hour. I think this might be enough because there are currently more players that are active regularly, so you usually find an Unknown's, Cesar's, Emperior's or Pudim's host you can join in the evening. Just having a chart like this might give a good hint when the big games usually happen. Doodle has the advantage of adjusting the timezone to the user's local time. We probably want this feature because I doubt many players would care to fill something up if it required working with timezone offsets. Another problem is that it can feel a bit too binding to tell in advance when you'll be online. I'm afraid this will make people either not fill anything or just make a very rough estimate. Then when a few players are delayed by a few minutes, some others might already give up waiting and go offline again. I tried using Doodle once when we had to find time for our 2-vs.-2 tournament game. It just didn't work and none of the players filled anything up. Perhaps just the combination of a graph activity chart with a text-based channel to plan big games could serve us best.
  4. Pudim could either attack earlier than he gathered all the meat, or he could already have a barracks and some infantry. When you came with infantry, he could hide units in his base and go kill your unprotected women on wood with his horses. He was defending well anyway. His K/D was just slightly lower and he didn't even feel the need to ask for resources. In conclusion, saying that Pudim is OP sounds a bit redundant. It's enough to just say Pudim.
  5. On many scenario maps, the player starts with extra buildings. When you mentioned Gauls, try selecting the Scenario map type and find the map Arcadia. Gauls get a longhouse at the start. Similarly with the map Azure Coast.
  6. I overall liked the gameplay, it just seemed that the small group of elite rank skirmishers healed by elite rank healers became OP. What are are skirmishers supposed to be countered by? Maybe spear cavalry could have a bonus against them? Healing now seems to be more useful, but perhaps it might be too strong now too. Ranged units no longer deal super high amount of damage, so when a healer can get to 16 HP a second, it's really powerful.
  7. Welcome to the forums! The AI is currently mostly useful for new players to learn the basics of the game. One of those things is that sometimes your allies will do dumb things and not react even when you tell them. This looks like you got the important lesson here, so perhaps it's time to join the multiplayer lobby now. Seriously though, it's possible that the AI is improved not to do stupid things like that, but it could help a lot if you could locate and attach the replay files of such games with a description of what happened and when. Please try looking for specific commands.txt and metadata.json files in the replays subdirectory somewhere in the 0 A.D. data directory and attach them with a description when encounter a problem like that.
  8. I've checked that we played on the same team just twice and we lost both of the games. Not sure if this is a good time to leave. I don't know what I should comment about the incident. I understand why you didn't like it. I don't agree with people misusing their technical knowledge of the game like that, especially when they think they are somewhat smart for doing so. Anyway, it might be good to realize that the internet is not really that anonymous as we might like. People can find information about you regardless of whether they share it or not. I'm sure that elexis wouldn't have shared this information unless it was something easily looked up by others. Technically anyone you connect to sees an address. They can look up a geographical location for that address but that might not necessarily even match where you are located physically. Other than not being necessarily accurate, how specific is that piece of information? We could probably assume that you are a human from the planet Earth to begin with. But we can target you much more accurately just by noticing that you have an internet access and can speak good English. Revealing your country can reduce the possibilities to a few million people, but that's still many more that anyone of us can even meet during their life. I think that starting this thread was a good idea to help target the issue of privacy. I'd probably reconsider giving up on the game completely if that is a reason for you to do so. Anyway, I'll leave that up to you. Thanks for the games we played together.
  9. Or just accuse the enemy of being sexist for only targeting women. That should work with today's society.
  10. There was an A23 alpha re-release a few weeks ago, so there are now A23a and A23b versions, which connect to a different lobby each. I know that it took some time for the Linux packages to get updated, so some users didn't see the updated versions in their repositories. Not sure about now.
  11. Rating doesn't get affected if a player leaves the lobby during the game. Could that be the case? Anyway, you should probably post the replays and ask @user1 to look into the issue. Or just ask the player directly to give you the points if you both agree you should have received them.
  12. Thanks for uploading. I'm adding my commentary as a spoiler:
  13. Please locate the replay file files (subdirectory with commands.txt and metadata.json files) and attach them because a proof is usually required. @user1 usually handles these issues, so he'll check if your request is legit and ask Dumbledor to give you your points.
  14. If nothing has changed, it's usually easier for moderators to delete your account, so that you can re-create it. I wouldn't recommend creating another account because that could get you banned. Let me tag @user1, but perhaps there is someone else specialized in these issues. By the way, if you find your user.cfg file, there should be a lobby.password entry, which probably contains your password hash and makes your password pre-entered when available.
  15. Hi, have you tried enabling STUN while opening the host from the lobby? If your ports are correctly forwarded, this shouldn't be needed, but it could help otherwise. I had problems with port forwarding because my internet provider doesn't forward ports unless you pay some extra. On the other hand, some people have problems connecting to STUN-enabled hosts due to some security restrictions. If you are on the same network, connecting directly to the host's local IP address should work even more reliably. There could perhaps be problems with firewall settings, but the problem typically is that people enter the wrong address. Maybe try sharing more details about what you're entering. I hope we can get it to work.
  16. Today we played an epic winter battle with several base swaps and a lot of sieging. Let's try uploading more of the good games. RamboXXX + Boudica + Cesar vs. bbgotbanned + Unknown_Player + Stockfish 2018-12-11_Winter-Battle.zip
  17. This could mean it's already fixed in the SVN version, if you don't want to wait. Can you please confirm, @wowgetoffyourcellphone?
  18. The problem is not you being unclear, but you being wrong. The original formula has only one scenario when it is undefined, that is when no game has taken place. Your formula, on the other hand, has an infinite number of cases when the result is undefined (all cases when the player has never won or never lost). It's not really clear what you mean by symmetrical shape of the formula or why your formula should be rated higher in respect to this property. This is where you should be clear. Except from the definability problem detailed above, I don't think your formula is an improvement due to these additional reasons: Most players' rating is gonna be a negative number, generally unbounded, but typically in an interval too narrow to consider rounding to an integer. The original produces ratings between 0 and 1 and can be naturally thought of as a percentage. With the exception of zero, your formula always yields a transcendental number. I'd rather say that my eae rating (i.e. win ratio against the reference player) is 0.1 (i.e. 10%) instead of having to use -2.197 as an approximation. Your formula doesn't give an intuitive idea of how good a player is. You can mostly only tell if they beat the reference player more often than they didn't. When you get a simple 5% instead, you just see they have won one in every 20 games so far. Your formula doesn't provide any more information than that anyway. The original formula is simple enough for anyone to compute in their head; yours isn't.
  19. This formula isn't better in any way, and it makes the infinity problem worse.
  20. Thanks for uploading, good game. I was expecting a twist in what looked like a lost game. One can see how a series of small mistakes can change the result dramatically. I'm attaching a fixed commands.txt for those who aren't able to see the replay. A few spoilers: darkcity's early raid was excellent. Dizaka lost a lot of units and his eco was completely stopped until all soldiers left. darkcity was probably sure about going all in against an archer civilization, which could probably only defend well with wood around the CC. Anyway, you could notice that a short time after the raid, Dizaka's economy was up again, even though he now only had women and was even easier to rush. This is often the case, and there was a missed opportunity for an earlier followup from darkcity. I think that it was either faction thinking the game is won, or Elegance not asking for help early, but faction was clearly late to come help to Elegance. This wouldn't be a problem if the team had more luck with starting positions. Since it was clear at that point which side is going to need help, I'd have expected faction to come earlier or perhaps try expanding near. At this point, darkcity had a good idea of not wasting too much time on Dizaka and he made another excellent move building a camp next to shade. The problem was that Dizaka wasn't as weak as darkcity probably thought, and fighting on two fronts is difficult in general. shade's CC should totally have fallen and that's what would have happened had shade ungarrisoned skirmishers from the camp to get support for his rams. Even though Elegance wasn't doing particularly bad, it was probably out of fear that started a retreating expansion near faction. He became an even easier target for PhyZic, which was also supported by the fact that faction was waiting for too long with his second attack too. darkcity's powerful camp was destroyed in an unfortunate way after darkcity lost his rams and he was left with no more ram counter in shade's base. Elegance let PhyZic capture his CC. He could probably be able to interfere and help defend one of the bases, but he wasn't. And faction let PhyZic capture his CC too. Considering that PhyZic's team was still disadvantaged at this point, this was a key event that later allowed PhyZic get his food production back up and keep resupplying units. faction got darkcity's base instead, even though he probably would have been able to capture the CC and save himself from having to build his own. faction's reasonable attack to PhyZic's main base, which was now almost empty, was rushed too much and several rams were lost with no effect. darkcity still hadn't made any ram counter to stop PhyZic's wave, which was now getting weaker, but it got too far. One player of each team resigns, Dizaka gets destroyed and PhyZic knows he has to keep attacking before the two remaining players can grow again. PhyZic is slightly disadvantaged but he has a food production running. faction has no food production and darkcity only just started rebuilding. PhyZic pushes with a main attack, which might not be strong enough, but he also adds a well-balanced side attack to destroy faction's new CC. That is where the damage is dealt. Everyone is low on resources but PhyZic has a decent five-farm food production running and keeps slowly resupplying. commands.txt
  21. Any chance you could be accidentally making a scroll-up gesture on the touch pad, or touching the mouse wheel or some function buttons that have to do with scrolling? Can you perhaps describe more precisely what exactly is happening? When you zoom out, is it instantly going back?
  22. The problem still persists for me on a recently unupdated SVN.
  23. I don't understand anything you are saying now. You did say you win most of our games. I checked that and saw that it's wrong. I didn't really accuse you of lying, but I pointed out that your estimates were wrong. Anyway, I'm glad that you corrected yourself. Top 10 out of the currently active players sounds much more realistic to me than the top 3 you used to rate yourself. Next time you can just avoid making false claims when you know it leads to a predictable chain of responses that prove you wrong.
  24. You could have noticed that I like to encourage people to post interesting replays, so maybe my like had little to do with you being on the losing side. However, in order to understand that, realizing that the world doesn't revolve around you might be needed, so I don't think we can do much here. You might have promoted yourself to a gold player in your terminology, but we can't just unsee all the many games you one-sidedly lost to players you'd like to view as inferior. I only have the full data of replays between us two, but let me help you calibrate your views using this example. Recently you claimed to win 80 % of games against me. The truth? You only really got to 50 % by winning the last one (which took place after your claim). You didn't resign in a single of those games before the host was closed, but that doesn't make your defeat disappear. Your numbers are way off and I think you should be more respectful towards other players. A top player would probably beat a hobby player like me in at least 90 % of the games.
  • Create New...